[fs999]

If you want a new camera you have to pay a certain price...

[snake]

If you want a new camera you have to pay a certain price...

Consumerism at its finest.

Don't want a new camera. Want a part in my cam replaced with an updated piece of glass from the same model, but essentially a different production run.

[fs999]

Do you think it could be possible to change a part of your Nokia N8 ? No. Same with all brands...

[snake]

Do you think it could be possible to change a part of your Nokia N8 ? No. Same with all brands...

Yes, and it was actually done on Nokia's dime.

-Nokia's notorious N8 power failure. New, updated board
-Nokia also upped the cam from 25fps to 30 fps, which was funny because people on gear forums swore, without knowledge, that it was a sensor limitation. Nokia released the beta and made it full reality with a function enhancing update. They also enhanced camera functionality. I also got an upgraded screen, which seems to be a parts supercession to one with improved characteristics.

It's common for manufacturers to offer updated parts from subsequent models. If you don't believe me, go even into the automotive industry and look up what a part "supercession" is. When newer, improved function/reliability/longevity parts are developed during a product cycle, which could be 6-8 years or more, the older ones, when applicable, get them as part of repairs or owner-selected upgrades.

Cams are no different, such as the faulty power supplies and boards in the early K-5s. Likely, the II is a product of the product improvements and if your old K-5 has a failure, you get the upgraded parts. That's likely why the last of the ur-K-5 were pretty good with reliability.

Shock rebuilds from Ohlins, Fox, Cane Creek, and so on...when you get your shock rebuilt, you get internals that are their latest developed ones. Look up Ohlins/Cane Creek for more explicit info on that. Send your old Double Barrell for service, it is upgraded to the current version with the improved poppet valving. Send your Fox back for service, they do such things as update to the low friction SKF seals.

I can go on and on...

---

Last edited by snake; 08-10-2013 at 01:34 PM.

[fs999]

But the removing of AA filter is not a failure, it's a new feature of a new camera.

[snake]

But the removing of AA filter is not a failure, it's a new feature of a new camera.

No one said it was. Barry misquoted and distorted my words in trying to argue it down.

I ask if you're going to discuss this with me, don't use someone else's distorted words.

Additionally, the AA is not removed, per se, it's replaced with a piece of glass that doesn't have the characteristics of this "filter" type glass. So it's not a removal and leaving the sensor open to the world.

The K-5II is an updated camera. It's not a separate model. No different than subsequent models of W203 Mercedes, for instance. I can further provide an infinite number of areas where updated parts are used in older models for replacements, often improved ones. I can go into the Swiss-German watch industry, too.

[Clavius]

But the removing of AA filter is not a failure, it's a new feature of a new camera.

To a lot of people, the K-5IIs is the admittance that the K-5 wasn't ready to be marketed yet. (Same goes for the K-5's wonky autofocus, and the superior K-5II(s) autofocus.) The 16 mp sensor lends itself to be used without an AA filter because of the pixel density. That fact that they used an AA filter anyway on the K-5 is either a fail, or a way to milk the consumer twice.

Yes, a retrofit kit should have been available to customers.

[Barry Pearson]

No one said it was. Barry misquoted and distorted my words in trying to argue it down.

I ask if you're going to discuss this with me, don't use someone else's distorted words.

I never claimed that you said that the AA filter in the K-5 was a fault. I simply pointed out that, since it wasn't a fault, there was no plausible reason to expect Pentax to provide a service to remove it.

Just as there is no plausible reason to expect Pentax to provide a service to upgrade the AF in a K-5 to the K-5II(s) version, or change the LCD to the new version.

(If someone's K-5 isn't behaving properly - that is, to specification - while under warranty, then Pentax should either repair it or replace it with a properly working K-5. Mine works properly, so they can work!)

[snake]

I never claimed that you said that the AA filter in the K-5 was a fault. I simply pointed out that, since it wasn't a fault, there was no plausible reason to expect Pentax to provide a service to remove it.

Just as there is no plausible reason to expect Pentax to provide a service to upgrade the AF in a K-5 to the K-5II(s) version, or change the LCD to the new version.

(If someone's K-5 isn't behaving properly - that is, to specification - while under warranty, then Pentax should either repair it or replace it with a properly working K-5. Mine works properly, so they can work!)

I will restate it, even though it's been stated already (since you keep distorting what I'm saying):

-the Pentax brand is one that has enjoyed loyalty, which is waning for several reasons. Once that loyalty is gone, Ricoh has little because it's using short term strategy in moving any units it can, not long term investment goals in the system. The FF is one of them. These rumors are startlingly similar to how Olympus 4/3 owners got burned into continuing to support 4/3 and keep their lenses, rather than sell and gtfo. See one of my above posts for the reference. Luckily, I wasn't heavily invested into 4/3 beyond kit lenses, so it was easy for me to simply give my equipment away.

-No further than the Pentax forums can one see how the quite possibly most loyal bunch are starting to shift and concede. If that FF nex comes out, since we're not averse, by and large, to manually focusing, our lens investment is made and we're on the NEX from here on out. We are the new customers to their base and it's somewhat laughable that they expect, and receive, value added updates and services (ps- Ricoh offers such services in their copying division), while us n00bs come in and apparently know how things work and shoot down any thought of Ricoh applying the same to the Pentax BRAND.

-Pentax no longer exists. It is a brand, a label. This is Ricoh now, so expectations have to be adjusted accordingly, not suspended in the past when a Pentax did exist as a division.

-The K-5II is a simple update of a preexisting camera. It is not a new one.

-The parent company, Ricoh, has a history of feature enhancement/upgrades of older cameras (please look into Ricoh's history and what their customers expect of the company...expectations of upgrades for old cameras inherited from new ones is an expectation)

-Pentax took the wrong road in making the AA so heavy for the K-5 v.1, in comparison to pretty much all the peers who use the same, excellent sensor (or variants thereof). The K-01 and K-30 appear to also have slightly lighter AA sensors on their respective version. The K-5II standard version also appears to have a slightly lighter filter. I know for sure that Sony's own Nex cams use lighter filters.

Ricoh's GR has no AA filter, as their own engineering conceded it was the way to go. Again, Pentax doesn't exist, Ricoh does.

-This would be a paid, value added service. You're thinking in terms of consumer products, while any "proper" camera company understands that these are tools for work (I generate income with my K-5 and the fact that you seem to be thinking of a PURELY consumerist point of view here seems to display our differing usages). Such tools have, from time to time, value added services available, from improved dials, silent updates and higher performing hardware.

So there seems to be a deviation: you are thinking about this from a consumerist/disposable society/hobbyist point of view, while I'm thinking about it from the standpoint of a person that regards my cam as a tool and sees the gap widening, if Ricoh plans on going further into this zone, between Pentax and Canon/Nikon. I like that Canon and Nikon users DEMAND value added services and they have pro services. However, things like this are why I'm now seeing more and more making the sensible jump to Nikon FF from Pentax and why Pentax brand is moving more into consumer goods and away from the discerning user.

It appears that Ricoh is not focusing on retaining the current customer base, but rather allowing them to flush themselves out, while they recruit newer customers from an entry level. This is extremely short-sighted and combined with the lens pricing strategy, it reveals many problems and decentralizations.

-By the way, my car had HID in later versions. I can go to the Mercedes dealer and have them install HID headlights and reprogram the on board computer to support them for a fraction of the cost of a brand new car! Not to mention, when repairs are done, the replacements often are different due to improvements. Even down to electronics. These improvements, even if silent, are value added. Sometimes they are done as voluntary campaigns. Go in for a tire change or oil change, and then the dealer installs a software update, silently replaces campaign parts, and so on.

Regardless, a value added service is common, not only in the imaging industry, but EVERY industry.

[Barry Pearson]

I will restate it, even though it's been stated already (since you keep distorting what I'm saying):

The statements in my post said nothing whatsoever about what you are saying! It couldn't possibly be distorting what you are saying.

I won't comment on the rest. I have no objection to Pentax or anyone else providing a value added service if they choose to. But I see no reason why we should expect Pentax to do it.

[snake]

The statements in my post said nothing whatsoever about what you are saying! It couldn't possibly be distorting what you are saying.

I won't comment on the rest. I have no objection to Pentax or anyone else providing a value added service if they choose to. But I see no reason why we should expect Pentax to do it.

Despite the fact that you have objected, several times, along with distorting my posts to drive your side, which was picked up by someone else in this thread.

And you having no expectation is your consumer flaw, not mine. Ricoh should be expected to bring the Pentax brand up to industry and peer norms, not appeal to people who expect nothing. This is short-term behavior that Pentax has been saddled with and why Canon and Nikon became giants.

Ricoh is going to continue having big problems with Pentax due to the loyalty concerns. The market is so crowded, there is little separating brands now other than loyalty. Pentax loses that, they are gone. The previous example of that was the collapse of 4/3, amid lie after lie, which is sometimes startlingly similar to the cloud of uncertainty around Pentax and mind you, at points, Pentax and Olympus 4/3 were considered alternates.

I'm also in Germany, and I'd even settle for ANY service, whatsoever. That would be value added for me. The distributors here are disasters, yet I expect them to do such things as:

-carry spare parts
-answer their phone and emails (which they ignore while playing on Facebook)
-return calls requesting spare parts
-have stock of items
-handle warranties and repairs properly
-technical assistance

Just because they choose not to do the above doesn't mean I shouldn't expect them to.

[Barry Pearson]

To a lot of people, the K-5IIs is the admittance that the K-5 wasn't ready to be marketed yet. (Same goes for the K-5's wonky autofocus, and the superior K-5II(s) autofocus.) The 16 mp sensor lends itself to be used without an AA filter because of the pixel density. That fact that they used an AA filter anyway on the K-5 is either a fail, or a way to milk the consumer twice.

Pentax have put an AA filter on 16 MP APS-C sensors before (K-5), at the same time (K-5II), and after (K-500, K-50), the launch of the K-5IIs. It is the K-5IIs that is the odd one out, not (say) the K-5. There is no implicit or explicit admittance from Pentax that an AA filter on such a sensor is a fail.

They provide a caution about the K-5IIs : "... where camera settings, lens selection and shooting conditions are controlled to prevent moiré". They don't promote it as the default version.

There is no consensus about whether or not it is a bad idea not to have an AA filter on the K-5IIs. There are people who have been involved in extended discussions and have then chosen the K-5II rather than the K-5IIs. So there is no consensus (in Pentax, or in reviews, or in the user base) that having an AA filter on a sensor of that size is a bad idea.

And there doesn't appear to be a consensus about the relative strengths of the AA filters on different Pentax cameras with a 16 MP sensor. Some say there are cameras with a weaker AA filter than the K-5, others disagree, and some even suspect the opposite.

[snake]

Pentax have put an AA filter on 16 MP APS-C sensors before (K-5), at the same time (K-5II), and after (K-500, K-50), the launch of the K-5IIs. It is the K-5IIs that is the odd one out, not (say) the K-5. There is no implicit or explicit admittance from Pentax that an AA filter on such a sensor is a fail.

They provide a caution about the K-5IIs : "... where camera settings, lens selection and shooting conditions are controlled to prevent moiré". They don't promote it as the default version.

There is no consensus about whether or not it is a bad idea not to have an AA filter on the K-5IIs. There are people who have been involved in extended discussions and have then chosen the K-5II rather than the K-5IIs. So there is no consensus (in Pentax, or in reviews, or in the user base) that having an AA filter on a sensor of that size is a bad idea.

And there doesn't appear to be a consensus about the relative strengths of the AA filters on different Pentax cameras with a 16 MP sensor. Some say there are cameras with a weaker AA filter than the K-5, others disagree, and some even suspect the opposite.

As mentioned, and specifically omitted by you, the K-01 and K-30 are reported to have weaker AA filters. I've used them and apply much less sharpening than with my K-5.

You're also continuing to distort what I'm saying into something I'm not. Why, I haven't the slightest clue, but there is clear distortion.

The GR has no AA filter. The K-5IIs has no AA filter, so including the grades in between, we're seeing a trend here away from what the K-5 v.1 had and possibly what previous models had. The previous models, once again, have no bearing here, as we're still in the K-5 model span with the v.2.

What the K-50 and 500 have is still left for debate, but again, there are grades in between and it seems highly unlikely they would regress to heavier AA filters. So this fact of having weaker AA filters and removing them, in two instances, supports the trend that you deny is existing.

In fact, several companies, over the years, have gone the way of weaker or no AA filters.

As for your final part, I have zero concern about the discussions and concensus. They can often be as filled with distortions as this one, where the topic is incidental.

[JinDesu]

I may have skipped a few posts - but you are looking for a service from Pentax to replace your k-5 sensor with a k-5II/k-30/k-50/k-500 sensor that has a weaker AA filter, or even to the k-5IIs AA-filterless sensor, correct? You are not expecting Pentax to take your sensor and reconfigure the AA filter it has currently.

[Barry Pearson]

As mentioned, and specifically omitted by you, the K-01 and K-30 are reported to have weaker AA filters. I've used them and apply much less sharpening than with my K-5.

You're also continuing to distort what I'm saying into something I'm not. Why, I haven't the slightest clue, but there is clear distortion.

The GR has no AA filter. The K-5IIs has no AA filter, so including the grades in between, we're seeing a trend here away from what the K-5 v.1 had and possibly what previous models had. The previous models, once again, have no bearing here, as we're still in the K-5 model span with the v.2.

What the K-50 and 500 have is still left for debate, but again, there are grades in between and it seems highly unlikely they would regress to heavier AA filters. So this fact of having weaker AA filters and removing them, in two instances, supports the trend that you deny is existing.

In fact, several companies, over the years, have gone the way of weaker or no AA filters.

As for your final part, I have zero concern about the discussions and concensus. They can often be as filled with distortions as this one, where the topic is incidental.

I haven't distorted anything you said. I responded to Clavius, and it is that response that you are now responding to! If you examine statements I've made in response to someone else, without quoting you or naming you or referring to you, and imagine that I am talking about you, you will get all sorts of weird ideas!

Neither have I denied a trend. As pixel density increases, I would expect a trend towards weaker or no AA filter. I would be astonished if any future Pentax with a higher pixel density didn't have a no-AA version. What Pentax did with the K-5IIs was unusual at the time - a 16 MP APS-C sensor without an AA filter. I'm not surprised it was accompanied with a version that had an AA filter. I suspect the time hadn't arrived where Pentax could get away with, in late 2012, just the no-AA version. And it would have been even more risky in late 2010 to release the K-5 without an AA filter.

As I said: "there is no consensus". You have your view, (which you are entitled to), others have different views. I Googled about this before posting that article, and found that even where people were viewing tests of the same target, they were coming to different conclusions. (Personally I am in favour of not having an AA filter, which is why I bought my K-5IIs in addition to my K-5. My K-5 is now my back-up camera. I wonder how many other people in this thread own both cameras and have taken 10s of 1000s of photos with each?)

For interest, the Nikon D70/D70s/D50 had a weak AA filter a long time ago. (The DNG "AntiAliasStrength" of each of those was 25). But many later Nikons had a stronger AA filter, even when they had a greater pixel density. It hasn't been a trend in just one direction.

And in the Pentax K-mount line the K-5IIs remains the odd one out - the K-500 and K-50 came later but had an AA filter. There is no hint that Pentax has come to the conclusion that an AA filter on a 16 MP APS-C sensor is a mistake. Neither have reviewers (who often give examples of moire when reviewing the K-5IIs), nor people in these forums. (There is no consensus about what strength of AA filter Pentax think is best).